The incumbency advantage probably played a role here. And awareness about this race was probably low, even as Barrow tried to elevate it and tie it to a consequential issue, like abortion. I agree with Cooper that perhaps the stakes weren't high enough.

—Meredith Conroy, 538 contributor

In addition to what Geoffrey and Cooper said, I’d also echo what Mary said about abortion polling in the state in an earlier post. Abortion is just a little less important to Georgia voters than it is nationally. That said, none of this means abortion won’t matter to voters in November. And as we’ve seen time and time again, the issue tends to give Democrats an edge.

—Monica Potts, 538

According to AdImpact, a lot less money was spent in support of Barrow than of Pinson.

But I'm actually struck by how little money was spent in this race at all! Just over 3 million dollars was spent in 2024 in support of either candidate, which is far less than we usually see for a high profile, competitive statewide election. This may have just flown under voters' radar in general, and having Pinson marked as the incumbent on the ballot may have also been enough to put him over the top.

—Mary Radcliffe, 538

It’s interesting, Nathaniel: Abortion ranked as the third-most important issue in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll of Georgia. And 64 percent of respondents to that poll said they thought abortion should be always or mostly legal. But perhaps voters today didn’t see their vote as having much of an impact; after all, regardless of the outcome of this race, conservatives will still dominate the state Supreme Court, where eight of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans.

—Cooper Burton, 538

Based on the blowouts in Oregon’s 3rd and 5th District Democratic primaries, is the lesson here just “big spending works”?

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538